Rose’s “Twelve Angry Men” From the Perspective of Criminal Justice, Book Review Example

Reginald Rose’s “Twelve Angry Men”, written originally as a teleplay and followed afterwards by numerous cinematic interpretations, can be not only viewed as a drama set within the parameters of the twentieth century American jury room, but an empirical description of how the jury system works. One of the most compelling elements of the narrative is precisely its examination of the strengths and weaknesses found in a legal system that relies on juries as one of the key foundations of criminal justice. Rose portrays some of the tensions inherent to this paradigm, demonstrating how a jury is constituted by a diverse number of opinions informed by various ideological, social and class based notions. However, at the end of the play, the system is nevertheless shown to be effective, insofar as the disputes between the members of the jury are resolved, thus leading to a verdict that the play’s narrative suggests is the correct one. Hence, from a purely theoretical and jurisprudential viewpoint, the work can be viewed as an argument in favour of the juror system. In the following essay, I will both recapitulate and interpret Rose’s interpretation of this system. The focus of my interpretation will primarily be critical, to the extent that Rose presents a certain idealized view of the juror system. According to Rose’s viewpoint, the juror system can resolve social antagonism through the power of dialogue and rationality. Ultimately, Rose presents a certain naïve view of this system in his play.

Before beginning my analysis, it is first prudent to review the basic elements that form the play’s narrative. The criminal case is the charge of premeditated murder. At the outset of the jury’s deliberations, eleven members of the jury are set to confirm the guilt of the defendant, with Juror No. 3 acknowledging that “I’ve never seen a guiltier man in my life.” (Rose, 4) Only one member of the jury (Juror No. 8) is against the rush to judgment, preferring instead to reflect on the facts of the case through a dialogue with the other jurors. He states: “I don’t want to change your mind. I just want to talk for a while.” (Rose, 5) The narrative thus develops from this point of initial dialogue, as Juror No. 8’s commitment to rational meditation on the issue eventually leads to the jury decision that proof of the defendant’s guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the story structure essentially takes the path of a miraculous conversion of the viewpoints of the other jury members, according to the efforts of one man.

The main relevance of the film to the criminal justice system can be viewed in terms of how it illustrates the jury process. Moreover, it is essentially an argument in favor of this system, insofar as what the reader is led to believe is that the correct decision is eventually reached. Concomitantly, Rose’s text demonstrates the diverse constitution of a jury, emphasizing the radical differences between jury members along social, ideological and political lines. In other words, the subjectivity and world-views of the juror’s participants are crucial to the entire jury process, since one of the main aims of this process is to negate the effect of such influences in favor of a thought process grounded in reason and a logical development of arguments. While the importance of social factors that shape the viewpoints of the jurors can be viewed as an immediate condemnation of the system, the eventual shift in the jury’s perspective is consistent with the argument that such factors can ultimately be minimized: it is possible for justice to transcend social relativism to reach a verdict that is uninfluenced by the latter. Another crucial point to the narrative is how the jury decides for their verdict through the legal burden of proof that is “guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.” The jury thus does not declare the innocence of the defendant, but rather realizes that the prosecution has not met this necessary criterion in their argument. The emphasis on this point seems to further underscore the rigor of the American legal system, insofar as only the absolute apodeitic truth can lead to a conviction.

By structuring the narrative such that at the outset all jurors with the exception of one view the defendant as guilty, Rose attempts to show how the jury system allows both conflicting opinions and their ultimate resolution. Thus, it can be said that Rose presents an idealized version of the jury deliberation process. In Rose’s text, the odds are completely stacked against the defendant and it is only through logic, reason and dialogue that the proper verdict is reached. It is the structure of the jury system that allows for such a process, as the system is based on the very notion of dialogue and deliberation to inform the eventual juror decision. What is idealistic about Rose’s view is precisely that such a dialogue can actually arrive at the correct conclusions. Rose’s faith is in the dialogic process and rational argument to resolve such tensions that emerge from personal, or subjective or social viewpoints: for Rose, the American legal system is thus one that is not ideological or not influenced by social factors, insofar as the latter are overcome through rational deliberation: one single juror is able to form the opinions of the other jurors, solely through he strength of reason. This represents a certain Socratic or philosophical portrayal of the jury system, as Juror No. 8 as Socrates argues against his interlocutors using logic, eventually convincing them of the falsity of their opinions. In essence, Rose’s thesis is that reason shall rule out over unreason, and the jury system is founded on this very possibility. As Mark Tushnet suggests, “The modernist legal theory implicit in Twelve Angry Men” lies in Juror No. 8’s “simple reasonableness.” (246) That such “simple reason” can overturn the entire social construct of belief evidenced in the other eleven jurors is certainly an optimistic viewpoint.

Another crucial element to the narrative is the centrality of the concept of “guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” By using this notion, Rose seems to wish to highlight the underlying humane nature of the criminal justice system, to the extent that only a truly guilty man will be punished in the system. However, any cursory glance at the academic literature will show this to be an entirely naïve position. There remain irresolvable tensions to the notion of the burden of legal proof: either according to the utter forgetting of this principle during the course of a criminal case, or according to such a doubt being exaggerated to such a radical extent that any conviction becomes impossible. This leads to a crucial philosophical question that is ignored in Rose’s play: what is the crucial role of doubt and skepticism in the legal system? While Rose argues for rationality and the possibility for the development of closed arguments as crucial to the jury system, it is nevertheless doubt and skepticism that leads to the jury decision. Accordingly, there appears to be a tension within the play, and thus within the legal system itself, between reason and doubt.

Whereas Rose presents a compelling account of how the jury system functions in the format of a narrative, it is not a radically theoretical examination of this system. Instead it is merely a superficial and even naïve account of how this system works, with its investment in the hope that one logical member of the jury is able to overturn the opinions of all the other juror members. It thus overlooks some of the key ideological and social notions that may constitute a jury: while Rose concedes that such factors do constitute a jury, he believes that they can eventually be overcome through the utilization of pure, rational thought. Simultaneously, this commitment to rationality is compromised by the doubt that is at the heart of the system in the notion of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, a doubt that explicitly indicates the impossibility of reaching a wholly logical conclusion. While “Twelve Angry Men” may present a gripping narrative, its superficial portrayal of the criminal justice system does not think in a radical theoretical manner the problems of criminal justice, rather only showing the intensity of jury deliberation under ideal conditions.

References

Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. London: Penguin Books, 2006.

Tushnet, Mark. “Class Action: One View of Gender and Law in Popular Culture.” Legal Reelism: Movies as Legal Texts. Ed. John Denvir. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1996. 244-260.